Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of a juvenile for rape under Section 376 IPC, and acquitted him due to lack of evidence, while simultaneously directing the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to provide compensation to the victim under the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme within one month. The Court emphasised that the Juvenile Justice system is rehabilitative, not punitive, but must uphold victims’ rights through compensation.
Facts
The case arose from a 2011 FIR alleging that the juvenile petitioner and a co-accused raped a minor girl in a maize field after gagging her while she was alone at home. During investigation, the petitioner claimed juvenility, and the case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board, which found him guilty under Section 376 IPC and sent him to a Special Home for two years. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Appellate Court, leading to the revision before the High Court. The prosecution relied on the victim’s testimony and medical evidence indicating injuries, though there was no sperm found, and the Investigating Officer admitted to not seizing blood-soaked soil or clothing.
Issues
Whether the conviction of the juvenile under Section 376 IPC was sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Whether the sentencing under the Juvenile Justice Act was in line with its rehabilitative spirit.
Whether the victim was entitled to compensation under the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme despite acquittal of the accused.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the conviction was based on inadequate and unreliable evidence, highlighting contradictions in the victim’s testimony, lack of direct eyewitnesses, absence of forensic evidence linking him to the crime, and enmity between the families. It was submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate Court failed to consider the principles of restorative justice under the Juvenile Justice Act while sentencing, adversely impacting his education and rehabilitation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and the victim’s counsel defended the conviction, arguing that the victim’s consistent testimony, corroborated by medical evidence of injuries, was sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 376 IPC. They argued that the revisional court could not re-appreciate evidence unless there was a glaring error or miscarriage of justice. It was also submitted that the sentence imposed was within the statutory framework of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction, noting it is supervisory and can intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice in cases of perverse findings or lack of evidence. It emphasised the object of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, read with the 2015 Act, which prioritises rehabilitation over retribution, requiring consideration of social investigation reports, best interest of the juvenile, and minimal institutionalisation. The Court also analysed Sections 357 and 357A CrPC and the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, holding that compensation to victims can be ordered even when the accused is acquitted, ensuring victim rehabilitation while maintaining the restorative justice framework.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment referenced:
- Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705 and Jitendra Singh v. State of UP (2013) 11 SCC 193, emphasising the rehabilitative purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act.
- Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2014) 8 SCC 390, highlighting differences between juvenile and adult criminal justice systems.
- Sunil Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar (2024 SCC OnLine Pat 960), reiterating the court’s duty to award victim compensation even in cases of acquittal.
- Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar (2023) 9 SCC 702, confirming courts’ power to direct compensation under Section 357 CrPC.
These authorities established the obligation of courts to align punishment with the rehabilitative framework of juvenile justice while protecting victims’ rights.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The victim’s testimony, while consistent, was uncorroborated by forensic evidence linking the juvenile to the crime.
- The investigation was deficient, with no seizure of material evidence or scientific tests such as DNA analysis.
- The social investigation report revealed no criminal antecedents, a supportive community, and the petitioner’s poor family background, indicating a rehabilitative approach was appropriate.
- The Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate Court failed to consider the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act and relevant rules before imposing institutionalisation.
- Victim compensation under Section 357A CrPC is mandatory for rehabilitation and is applicable even when the accused is acquitted.
The Court stated: “Punishment of juveniles is not the object of the Juvenile Justice Act, and restorative justice must prevail, ensuring rehabilitation while protecting the victim’s rights.”
Conclusion
The High Court:
- Allowed the revision petition.
- Set aside the conviction and sentence of the juvenile under Section 376 IPC, acquitting him of all charges.
- Directed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the victim under the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme within one month.
- Directed circulation of this judgment to Juvenile Justice Boards and Children’s Courts across Bihar for compliance with compensation principles.
Implications
This judgment:
- Reinforces the rehabilitative objectives of the Juvenile Justice system while upholding victims’ rights to compensation.
- Clarifies that victim compensation under Section 357A CrPC applies even when the accused is acquitted.
- Emphasises the duty of courts to consider social investigation reports and best interest principles before sentencing juveniles.
- Encourages systemic adherence to restorative justice while maintaining accountability for victims’ rehabilitation.
Short Notes on Referred Cases
- Salil Bali (2013): Affirmed the rehabilitative and restorative nature of juvenile justice.
- Subramanian Swamy (2014): Differentiated juvenile justice from criminal justice, focusing on rehabilitation.
- Sunil Kumar Jha (2024 Patna): Held courts are duty-bound to award victim compensation even if the accused is acquitted.
FAQs
1. Can a victim receive compensation if the accused juvenile is acquitted?
Yes, courts can direct compensation under Section 357A CrPC even if the accused is acquitted.
2. What is the objective of sentencing under the Juvenile Justice Act?
To rehabilitate and reintegrate juveniles into society, focusing on restorative rather than punitive measures.
3. What factors must courts consider before sentencing juveniles?
Social investigation reports, the juvenile’s background, and the best interest of the child must be considered, prioritising non-institutional rehabilitative measures.